# Official Journal C 309/18 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6018 September 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 309

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6018 September 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2017/C 309/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 309/01

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 309/02 | Case C-599/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision taken by a competent authority — Obligation to state reasons) | 2 |
| 2017/C 309/03 | Opinion 1/15: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — European Parliament (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft agreement between Canada and the European Union — Transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to Canada — Appropriate legal bases — Article 16(2), point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU — Compatibility with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 3 |
| 2017/C 309/04 | Case C-79/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision taken by a competent authority — Obligation to state reasons) | 4 |
| 2017/C 309/05 | Case C-517/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 30 — Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass — Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information — Terms of reference of the hearing officer — Decision 2011/695/EU — Article 8 — Confidentiality — Information from a leniency application — Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment) | 5 |
| 2017/C 309/06 | Case C-560/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Telecommunication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Allocation of the rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting radio frequencies for radio and television — Annulment of a free of charge on-going selection procedure (beauty contest) and substitution of a fee-based auction for that procedure — Intervention of the national legislature — Independence of the national regulatory authorities — Prior consultation — Award criteria — Legitimate expectations) | 5 |
| 2017/C 309/07 | Case C-670/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Access to justice in cross-border disputes — Directive 2003/8/EC — Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes — Scope — Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable) | 6 |
| 2017/C 309/08 | Case C-696/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Transport — Directive 2010/40/EU — Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport — Article 7 — Delegation of power to the European Commission — Limits — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 — Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 — Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users — Article 290 TFEU — Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power — Essential element of the matter in question — Establishment of a supervisory body) | 7 |
| 2017/C 309/09 | Case C-80/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(1) — EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme — Free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Validity — Principle of sound administration — Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal — Use of data in the BREF for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal — Meaning of similar products — Reference installations — Obligation to state reasons) | 7 |
| 2017/C 309/10 | Case C-84/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH v Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark including the word element XKING — Opposition by the proprietor of national marks and an international registration including the word element X — Rejection of opposition by the Board of Appeal — Likelihood of confusion — Distortion of the evidence) | 8 |
| 2017/C 309/11 | Case C-112/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Telecommunication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Equal treatment — Determination of the number of digital radio frequencies to be granted to each operator which already has analogue radio frequencies — Taking into consideration analogue radio frequencies used unlawfully — Correspondence between the number of analogue radio frequencies held and the number of digital radio frequencies obtained) | 9 |
| 2017/C 309/12 | Case C-175/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 17 — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Additional payments — Child protection association — Children’s village parents — Temporary absence of foster parents — Workers employed as relief parents — Definition) | 10 |
| 2017/C 309/13 | Case C-182/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element STICK MiniMINI Beretta — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons) | 10 |
| 2017/C 309/14 | Joined Cases C-196/16 and C-197/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Corridonia (C-196/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16) and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 2011/92/EU — Possibility of carrying out, a posteriori, an environmental impact assessment of an operational plant for the production of energy from biogas with a view to obtaining a new consent) | 11 |
| 2017/C 309/15 | Case C-225/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 11(2) — Decision to impose an entry ban taken before that directive entered into force and relating to a longer period than that provided for by the directive — Time from which the period of the entry ban starts to run) | 12 |
| 2017/C 309/16 | Case C-348/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection — Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant) | 12 |
| 2017/C 309/17 | Case C-386/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Toridas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply — Exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods — Intention of the person acquiring the goods to resell them to a taxable person in another Member State before they are taken out of the first Member State — Possible effect of some of the goods being processed before they are dispatched) | 13 |
| 2017/C 309/18 | Case C-471/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element meissen — Rejection of the opposition — Evidence presented for the first time — Distortion — Genuine use of the earlier trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Article 8(5) — Link between the trade marks to be compared) | 14 |
| 2017/C 309/19 | Case C-490/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A.S. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Arrival of an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals wishing to obtain international protection — Organisation by the authorities of a Member State of the crossing of the border for the purpose of transit to another Member State — Entry authorised by way of derogation for humanitarian reasons — Article 13 — Irregular crossing of an external border — Period of 12 months from the crossing of the border — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Article 29 — Period of six months for the purpose of effecting the transfer — Running of the periods — Use of an appeal — Suspensory effect) | 14 |
| 2017/C 309/20 | Case C-519/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Funding of official controls — Articles 26 and 27 — General taxation — Fees or charges — Charge on retail food outlets) | 15 |
| 2017/C 309/21 | Case C-646/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection — Organisation of border crossing by the authorities of one Member State for the purpose of transit to another Member State — Entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds — Article 2(m) — Definition of a visa — Article 12 — Issuing of a visa — Article 13 — Irregular crossing of an external border) | 16 |
| 2017/C 309/22 | Case C-670/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 20 — Start of the determination process — Lodging an application for international protection — Report prepared by the authorities that reached the competent authorities — Article 21(1) — Time limits for making a take charge request — Transfer of responsibility to another Member State — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review) | 17 |
| 2017/C 309/23 | Case C-262/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Solvay Chimica Italia SpA and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico | 17 |
| 2017/C 309/24 | Case C-263/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Whirlpool Europe Srl and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico | 18 |
| 2017/C 309/25 | Case C-273/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Sol Gas Primari Srl v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico | 19 |
| 2017/C 309/26 | Case C-297/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany | 20 |
| 2017/C 309/27 | Case C-299/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google Inc. | 21 |
| 2017/C 309/28 | Case C-312/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 22 |
| 2017/C 309/29 | Case C-318/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Mahmud Ibrahim and Others v Federal Republic of Germany | 23 |
| 2017/C 309/30 | Case C-319/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Nisreen Sharqawi and Others v Federal Republic of Germany | 24 |
| 2017/C 309/31 | Case C-328/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria | 25 |
| 2017/C 309/32 | Case C-331/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma | 26 |
| 2017/C 309/33 | Case C-342/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) lodged on 8 June 2017 — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova | 26 |
| 2017/C 309/34 | Case C-368/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Hüsken and Others v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH | 27 |
| 2017/C 309/35 | Case C-374/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Finanzamt B v A-Brauerei | 27 |
| 2017/C 309/36 | Case C-389/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — UAB EVP International v Lietuvos bankas | 28 |
| 2017/C 309/37 | Case C-400/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch | 28 |
| 2017/C 309/38 | Case C-402/17 P: Appeal brought on 04/07/2017 by JYSK sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 04/05/2017 in Case T-403/15: JYSK sp. z o.o. v European Commission | 29 |
| 2017/C 309/39 | Case C-413/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB Roche Lietuva v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika | 29 |
| 2017/C 309/40 | Case C-431/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon | 30 |
| 2017/C 309/41 | Case C-443/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents | 30 |
| 2017/C 309/42 | Case C-458/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 July 2017 by Rami Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2017 in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union | 31 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 309/43 | Case T-371/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Antitrust — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision requesting information — Application for interim measures — No urgency) | 33 |
| 2017/C 309/44 | Case T-429/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE) | 33 |
| 2017/C 309/45 | Case T-438/17: Action brought on 17 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR) | 34 |
| 2017/C 309/46 | Case T-456/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS) | 35 |
| 2017/C 309/47 | Case T-459/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Fifth Avenue Entertainment v EUIPO — Commodore Entertainment Corporation (THE COMMODORES) | 36 |
| 2017/C 309/48 | Case T-464/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — TP v Commission | 36 |
| 2017/C 309/49 | Case T-465/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX) | 37 |
| 2017/C 309/50 | Case T-469/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR) | 38 |
| 2017/C 309/51 | Case T-470/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek) | 38 |
| 2017/C 309/52 | Case T-471/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Edison v EUIPO (EDISON) | 39 |
| 2017/C 309/53 | Case T-488/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone) | 40 |
| 2017/C 309/54 | Case T-489/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper) | 40 |
| 2017/C 309/55 | Case T-13/16: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF) | 41 |
| 2017/C 309/56 | Case T-260/17: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE) | 41 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 309/02

Case C-599/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision taken by a competent authority — Obligation to state reasons)

2

2017/C 309/03

Opinion 1/15: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — European Parliament (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft agreement between Canada and the European Union — Transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to Canada — Appropriate legal bases — Article 16(2), point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU — Compatibility with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

3

2017/C 309/04

Case C-79/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision taken by a competent authority — Obligation to state reasons)

4

2017/C 309/05

Case C-517/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 30 — Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass — Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information — Terms of reference of the hearing officer — Decision 2011/695/EU — Article 8 — Confidentiality — Information from a leniency application — Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

5

2017/C 309/06

Case C-560/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Telecommunication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Allocation of the rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting radio frequencies for radio and television — Annulment of a free of charge on-going selection procedure (beauty contest) and substitution of a fee-based auction for that procedure — Intervention of the national legislature — Independence of the national regulatory authorities — Prior consultation — Award criteria — Legitimate expectations)

5

2017/C 309/07

Case C-670/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Access to justice in cross-border disputes — Directive 2003/8/EC — Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes — Scope — Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable)

6

2017/C 309/08

Case C-696/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Transport — Directive 2010/40/EU — Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport — Article 7 — Delegation of power to the European Commission — Limits — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 — Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 — Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users — Article 290 TFEU — Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power — Essential element of the matter in question — Establishment of a supervisory body)

7

2017/C 309/09

Case C-80/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(1) — EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme — Free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Validity — Principle of sound administration — Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal — Use of data in the BREF for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal — Meaning of similar products — Reference installations — Obligation to state reasons)

7

2017/C 309/10

Case C-84/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH v Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark including the word element XKING — Opposition by the proprietor of national marks and an international registration including the word element X — Rejection of opposition by the Board of Appeal — Likelihood of confusion — Distortion of the evidence)

8

2017/C 309/11

Case C-112/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Telecommunication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Equal treatment — Determination of the number of digital radio frequencies to be granted to each operator which already has analogue radio frequencies — Taking into consideration analogue radio frequencies used unlawfully — Correspondence between the number of analogue radio frequencies held and the number of digital radio frequencies obtained)

9

2017/C 309/12

Case C-175/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 17 — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Additional payments — Child protection association — Children’s village parents — Temporary absence of foster parents — Workers employed as relief parents — Definition)

10

2017/C 309/13

Case C-182/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element STICK MiniMINI Beretta — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons)

10

2017/C 309/14

Joined Cases C-196/16 and C-197/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Corridonia (C-196/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16) and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 2011/92/EU — Possibility of carrying out, a posteriori, an environmental impact assessment of an operational plant for the production of energy from biogas with a view to obtaining a new consent)

11

2017/C 309/15

Case C-225/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 11(2) — Decision to impose an entry ban taken before that directive entered into force and relating to a longer period than that provided for by the directive — Time from which the period of the entry ban starts to run)

12

2017/C 309/16

Case C-348/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection — Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant)

12

2017/C 309/17

Case C-386/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Toridas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply — Exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods — Intention of the person acquiring the goods to resell them to a taxable person in another Member State before they are taken out of the first Member State — Possible effect of some of the goods being processed before they are dispatched)

13

2017/C 309/18

Case C-471/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element meissen — Rejection of the opposition — Evidence presented for the first time — Distortion — Genuine use of the earlier trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Article 8(5) — Link between the trade marks to be compared)

14

2017/C 309/19

Case C-490/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A.S. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Arrival of an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals wishing to obtain international protection — Organisation by the authorities of a Member State of the crossing of the border for the purpose of transit to another Member State — Entry authorised by way of derogation for humanitarian reasons — Article 13 — Irregular crossing of an external border — Period of 12 months from the crossing of the border — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Article 29 — Period of six months for the purpose of effecting the transfer — Running of the periods — Use of an appeal — Suspensory effect)

14

2017/C 309/20

Case C-519/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Funding of official controls — Articles 26 and 27 — General taxation — Fees or charges — Charge on retail food outlets)

15

2017/C 309/21

Case C-646/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection — Organisation of border crossing by the authorities of one Member State for the purpose of transit to another Member State — Entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds — Article 2(m) — Definition of a visa — Article 12 — Issuing of a visa — Article 13 — Irregular crossing of an external border)

16

2017/C 309/22

Case C-670/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 20 — Start of the determination process — Lodging an application for international protection — Report prepared by the authorities that reached the competent authorities — Article 21(1) — Time limits for making a take charge request — Transfer of responsibility to another Member State — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review)

17

2017/C 309/23

Case C-262/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Solvay Chimica Italia SpA and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

17

2017/C 309/24

Case C-263/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Whirlpool Europe Srl and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

18

2017/C 309/25

Case C-273/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Sol Gas Primari Srl v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

19

2017/C 309/26

Case C-297/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany

20

2017/C 309/27

Case C-299/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google Inc.

21

2017/C 309/28

Case C-312/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

22

2017/C 309/29

Case C-318/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Mahmud Ibrahim and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

23

2017/C 309/30

Case C-319/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Nisreen Sharqawi and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

24

2017/C 309/31

Case C-328/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

25

2017/C 309/32

Case C-331/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

26

2017/C 309/33

Case C-342/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) lodged on 8 June 2017 — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova

26

2017/C 309/34

Case C-368/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Hüsken and Others v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

27

2017/C 309/35

Case C-374/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Finanzamt B v A-Brauerei

27

2017/C 309/36

Case C-389/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — UAB EVP International v Lietuvos bankas

28

2017/C 309/37

Case C-400/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch

28

2017/C 309/38

Case C-402/17 P: Appeal brought on 04/07/2017 by JYSK sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 04/05/2017 in Case T-403/15: JYSK sp. z o.o. v European Commission

29

2017/C 309/39

Case C-413/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB Roche Lietuva v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika

29

2017/C 309/40

Case C-431/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

30

2017/C 309/41

Case C-443/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents

30

2017/C 309/42

Case C-458/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 July 2017 by Rami Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2017 in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union

Rami Makhlouf

Council of the European Union

31

General Court

2017/C 309/43

Case T-371/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Antitrust — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision requesting information — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

33

2017/C 309/44

Case T-429/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE)

33

2017/C 309/45

Case T-438/17: Action brought on 17 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

34

2017/C 309/46

Case T-456/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)

35

2017/C 309/47

Case T-459/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Fifth Avenue Entertainment v EUIPO — Commodore Entertainment Corporation (THE COMMODORES)

36

2017/C 309/48

Case T-464/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — TP v Commission

36

2017/C 309/49

Case T-465/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX)

37

2017/C 309/50

Case T-469/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

38

2017/C 309/51

Case T-470/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)

38

2017/C 309/52

Case T-471/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Edison v EUIPO (EDISON)

39

2017/C 309/53

Case T-488/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)

40

2017/C 309/54

Case T-489/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)

40

2017/C 309/55

Case T-13/16: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)

41

2017/C 309/56

Case T-260/17: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)

41

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2017/C 309/57 | Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-175/17 ( OJ C 269, 14.8.2017 ) | 42 |

Corrigenda

2017/C 309/57

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-175/17 ( OJ C 269, 14.8.2017 )

( OJ C 269, 14.8.2017 )

42

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2017/C 309/01)

Last publication

OJ C 300, 11.9.2017

Past publications

OJ C 293, 4.9.2017

OJ C 283, 28.8.2017

OJ C 277, 21.8.2017

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017

OJ C 256, 7.8.2017

OJ C 249, 31.7.2017

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

(Case C-599/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision taken by a competent authority - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (represented by: T. Buruma and A.M. van Eik, advocaten), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, C. Crane, J. Kraehling and V. Kaye, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and B. Fodda, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE);

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/3

---

Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — European Parliament

(Opinion 1/15) (1)

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement between Canada and the European Union - Transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to Canada - Appropriate legal bases - Article 16(2), point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU - Compatibility with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2017/C 309/03)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and D. Moore, Agents)

Operative part of the Opinion

| 1. | The Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) TFEU and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) TFEU and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU.

| 2. | The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data is incompatible with Articles 7, 8 and 21 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as it does not preclude the transfer of sensitive data from the European Union to Canada and the use and retention of that data. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data is incompatible with Articles 7, 8 and 21 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as it does not preclude the transfer of sensitive data from the European Union to Canada and the use and retention of that data.

| 3. | The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must, in order to be compatible with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:






  (a) | determine in a clear and precise manner the PNR data to be transferred from the European Union to Canada; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must, in order to be compatible with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:

(a)

determine in a clear and precise manner the PNR data to be transferred from the European Union to Canada;

| (b) | provide that the models and criteria used in the context of automated processing of PNR data will be specific and reliable and non-discriminatory; provide that the databases used will be limited to those used by Canada in relation to the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

provide that the models and criteria used in the context of automated processing of PNR data will be specific and reliable and non-discriminatory; provide that the databases used will be limited to those used by Canada in relation to the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime;

| (c) | save in the context of verifications in relation to the pre-established models and criteria on which automated processing of Passenger Name Record data is based, make the use of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority during the air passengers’ stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and any disclosure of that data to other authorities, subject to substantive and procedural conditions based on objective criteria; make that use and that disclosure, except in cases of validly established urgency, subject to a prior review carried out either by a court or by an independent administrative body, the decision of that court or body authorising the use being made following a reasoned request by those authorities, inter alia, within the framework of procedures for the prevention, detection or prosecution of crime; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

save in the context of verifications in relation to the pre-established models and criteria on which automated processing of Passenger Name Record data is based, make the use of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority during the air passengers’ stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and any disclosure of that data to other authorities, subject to substantive and procedural conditions based on objective criteria; make that use and that disclosure, except in cases of validly established urgency, subject to a prior review carried out either by a court or by an independent administrative body, the decision of that court or body authorising the use being made following a reasoned request by those authorities, inter alia, within the framework of procedures for the prevention, detection or prosecution of crime;

| (d) | limit the retention of Passenger Name Record data after the air passengers’ departure to that of passengers in respect of whom there is objective evidence from which it may be inferred that they may present a risk in terms of the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

limit the retention of Passenger Name Record data after the air passengers’ departure to that of passengers in respect of whom there is objective evidence from which it may be inferred that they may present a risk in terms of the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime;

| (e) | make the disclosure of Passenger Name Record data by the Canadian Competent Authority to the government authorities of a third country subject to the condition that there be either an agreement between the European Union and that third country equivalent to the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data, or a decision of the European Commission, under Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, covering the authorities to which it is intended that Passenger Name Record data be disclosed; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

make the disclosure of Passenger Name Record data by the Canadian Competent Authority to the government authorities of a third country subject to the condition that there be either an agreement between the European Union and that third country equivalent to the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data, or a decision of the European Commission, under Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, covering the authorities to which it is intended that Passenger Name Record data be disclosed;

| (f) | provide for a right to individual notification for air passengers in the event of use of Passenger Name Record data concerning them during their stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and in the event of disclosure of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority to other authorities or to individuals; and |
| --- | --- |

(f)

provide for a right to individual notification for air passengers in the event of use of Passenger Name Record data concerning them during their stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and in the event of disclosure of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority to other authorities or to individuals; and

| (g) | guarantee that the oversight of the rules laid down in the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data relating to the protection of air passengers with regard to the processing of Passenger Name Record data concerning them will be carried out by an independent supervisory authority. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

guarantee that the oversight of the rules laid down in the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data relating to the protection of air passengers with regard to the processing of Passenger Name Record data concerning them will be carried out by an independent supervisory authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission

(Case C-79/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision taken by a competent authority - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne and M. Bishop, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Konstantinidis and R. Tricot, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F. Fize and G. de Bergues, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1 | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2014, Hamas v Council (T-400/10, EU:T:2014:1095); |
| --- | --- |

1

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2014, Hamas v Council (T-400/10, EU:T:2014:1095);

| 2 | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3 | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-517/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Articles 101 and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 30 - Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass - Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information - Terms of reference of the hearing officer - Decision 2011/695/EU - Article 8 - Confidentiality - Information from a leniency application - Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 309/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH (represented by: L. Garzaniti, F. Hoseinian and A. Burckett St Laurent, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, P. Van Nuffel and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-560/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Telecommunication services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Allocation of the rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting radio frequencies for radio and television - Annulment of a free of charge on-going selection procedure (‘beauty contest’) and substitution of a fee-based auction for that procedure - Intervention of the national legislature - Independence of the national regulatory authorities - Prior consultation - Award criteria - Legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 309/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA

Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Intervening parties: Elettronica Industriale SpA, Cairo Network Srl, Tivuitalia SpA, Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI), Sky Italia Srl

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the annulment, by a national legislature, of an on-going selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies conducted by the competent national regulatory authority in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings which was suspended by ministerial order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the annulment, by a national legislature, of an on-going selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies conducted by the competent national regulatory authority in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings which was suspended by ministerial order.

| 2. | Article 9 of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, must be interpreted as not precluding a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies free of charge, which was commenced in order to remedy the unlawful exclusion of certain operators from the market, from being replaced by a fees-based procedure initiated under an amended Radio Frequency Allocation Plan subsequent to a reduction in their number, provided that the new selection procedure is based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria and that it is in line with the objectives laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of Directive 2002/21, as amended. It is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, whether the conditions set out in the fee-based selection procedure are such as to allow an actual entry of new entrants into the digital television market without unduly favouring analogue or digital incumbents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9 of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, must be interpreted as not precluding a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies free of charge, which was commenced in order to remedy the unlawful exclusion of certain operators from the market, from being replaced by a fees-based procedure initiated under an amended Radio Frequency Allocation Plan subsequent to a reduction in their number, provided that the new selection procedure is based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria and that it is in line with the objectives laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of Directive 2002/21, as amended. It is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, whether the conditions set out in the fee-based selection procedure are such as to allow an actual entry of new entrants into the digital television market without unduly favouring analogue or digital incumbents.

| 3. | The principle of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies on the sole ground that operators, such as the applicants in the main proceedings, had been invited to tender and, as the only tenderers, would have been granted rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting frequencies for radio and television had the procedure not been annulled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies on the sole ground that operators, such as the applicants in the main proceedings, had been invited to tender and, as the only tenderers, would have been granted rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting frequencies for radio and television had the procedure not been annulled.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta

(Case C-670/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Access to justice in cross-border disputes - Directive 2003/8/EC - Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes - Scope - Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable))

(2017/C 309/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Jan Šalplachta

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 8 and 12 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, read together, must be interpreted as meaning that legal aid granted by the Member State of the court hearing the particular case, in which a natural person domiciled or resident in another Member State has submitted a legal aid application in the context of a cross-border dispute, also covers the costs paid by that person for the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of that application.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case C-696/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Transport - Directive 2010/40/EU - Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport - Article 7 - Delegation of power to the European Commission - Limits - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 - Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 - Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - Article 290 TFEU - Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power - Essential element of the matter in question - Establishment of a supervisory body))

(2017/C 309/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and J. Pavliš, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, P.J.O. Van Nuffel, J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

(Case C-80/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(1) - EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Validity - Principle of sound administration - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Use of data in the ‘BREF’ for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal - Meaning of ‘similar products’ - Reference installations - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine SASU

Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred has revealed nothing that could affect the validity of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH v Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-84/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark including the word element ‘XKING’ - Opposition by the proprietor of national marks and an international registration including the word element ‘X’ - Rejection of opposition by the Board of Appeal - Likelihood of confusion - Distortion of the evidence))

(2017/C 309/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin (represented by: E. Carrillo, abogada), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-112/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Telecommunication services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Equal treatment - Determination of the number of digital radio frequencies to be granted to each operator which already has analogue radio frequencies - Taking into consideration analogue radio frequencies used unlawfully - Correspondence between the number of analogue radio frequencies held and the number of digital radio frequencies obtained))

(2017/C 309/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Persidera SpA

Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Intervening parties: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI), Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI), Elettronica Industriale SpA, Television Broadcasting System Spa, Premiata Ditta Borghini e Stocchetti di Torino Srl, Rete A SpA, Centro Europa 7 Srl, Prima TV SpA, Sky Italia Srl, Elemedia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, for the purposes of converting existing analogue channels into digital networks, takes into consideration unlawfully managed analogue channels, where that leads to an unfair competitive advantage being prolonged, or even reinforced. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, for the purposes of converting existing analogue channels into digital networks, takes into consideration unlawfully managed analogue channels, where that leads to an unfair competitive advantage being prolonged, or even reinforced.

| 2. | The principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, on the basis of the same conversion criterion, leads to a proportionately larger reduction in the number of digital networks assigned compared with the number of analogue channels operated to the detriment of one operator compared to its competitors, unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to its objective. The continuity of television output constitutes a legitimate objective capable of justifying such a difference in treatment. However, a provision which would lead to operators already present on the market being assigned a number of digital radio frequencies which is greater than the number that is sufficient to ensure the continuity of their television output would go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and would, thus, be disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, on the basis of the same conversion criterion, leads to a proportionately larger reduction in the number of digital networks assigned compared with the number of analogue channels operated to the detriment of one operator compared to its competitors, unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to its objective. The continuity of television output constitutes a legitimate objective capable of justifying such a difference in treatment. However, a provision which would lead to operators already present on the market being assigned a number of digital radio frequencies which is greater than the number that is sufficient to ensure the continuity of their television output would go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and would, thus, be disproportionate.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry

(Case C-175/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 17 - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Additional payments - Child protection association - ‘Children’s village parents’ - Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ - Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ - Definition))

(2017/C 309/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik

Defendant: SOS-Lapsikylä ry

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot apply to paid work, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in caring for children in a family-like environment, relieving the person principally responsible for that task, where it is not established that the working time as a whole is not measured or predetermined or it may be determined by the worker himself, which is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA

(Case C-182/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the relevant public - Independent distinctive role - Dominance - Criteria for assessing visual similarity - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (represented by G. Ghisletti, F. Braga and P. Pozzi, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Corridonia (C-196/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16) and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

(Joined Cases C-196/16 and C-197/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 2011/92/EU - Possibility of carrying out, a posteriori, an environmental impact assessment of an operational plant for the production of energy from biogas with a view to obtaining a new consent))

(2017/C 309/14)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Comune di Corridonia (C-196/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16), Marcello Bartolini (C-197/16), Filippo Bruè (C-197/16), Sergio Forti (C-197/16), Stefano Piatti (C-197/16), Gaetano Silvetti (C-197/16), Gianfranco Silvetti (C-197/16), Rocco Tirabasso (C-197/16), Sante Vagni (C-197/16), Albergo Ristorante Le Grazie Sas di Forti Sergio & Co. (C-197/16), Suolificio Elefante Srl (C-197/16), Suolificio Roxy Srl (C-197/16), Aldo Alessandrini (C-197/16)

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

Intervening parties: VBIO1 Società Agricola Srl (C-196/16), Regione Marche, Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale delle Marche — (ARPAM) — Dipartimento Provinciale di Macerata, ARPAM, VBIO2 Società Agricola Srl (C-197/16), Azienda Sanitaria Unica Regionale — Marche (ASUR Marche) (C-197/16), ASUR Marche — Area Vasta 3 (C-197/16), Comune di Colmurano (C-197/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16)

Operative part of the judgment

In the event of failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment required under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, EU law, on the one hand, requires Member States to nullify the unlawful consequences of that failure and, on the other hand, does not preclude regularisation through the conducting of an impact assessment, after the plant concerned has been constructed and has entered into operation, on condition that:

| — | national rules allowing for that regularisation do not provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to circumvent the rules of EU law or to dispense with applying them, and |
| --- | --- |

—

national rules allowing for that regularisation do not provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to circumvent the rules of EU law or to dispense with applying them, and

| — | an assessment carried out for regularisation purposes is not conducted solely in respect of the plant’s future environmental impact, but must also take into account its environmental impact from the time of its completion. |
| --- | --- |

—

an assessment carried out for regularisation purposes is not conducted solely in respect of the plant’s future environmental impact, but must also take into account its environmental impact from the time of its completion.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami

(Case C-225/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 11(2) - Decision to impose an entry ban taken before that directive entered into force and relating to a longer period than that provided for by the directive - Time from which the period of the entry ban starts to run))

(2017/C 309/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party in the main proceedings

Mossa Ouhrami

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that the starting point of the duration of an entry ban, as referred to in that provision, which in principle may not exceed five years, must be calculated from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of the Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano

(Case C-348/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection - Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant))

(2017/C 309/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Moussa Sacko

Defendant: Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in particular Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court or tribunal hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting a manifestly unfounded application for international protection from dismissing the appeal without hearing the applicant where the factual circumstances leave no doubt as to whether that decision was well founded, on condition that, first, during the proceedings at first instance, the applicant was given the opportunity of a personal interview on his or her application for international protection, in accordance with Article 14 of the directive, and the report or transcript of the interview, if an interview was conducted, was placed on the case-file, in accordance with Article 17(2) of the directive, and, second, the court hearing the appeal may order that a hearing be conducted if it considers it necessary for the purpose of ensuring that there is a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, as required under Article 46(3) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Toridas’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-386/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(1) - Classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply - Exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods - Intention of the person acquiring the goods to resell them to a taxable person in another Member State before they are taken out of the first Member State - Possible effect of some of the goods being processed before they are dispatched))

(2017/C 309/17)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Toridas’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Intervening party: Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a supply of goods by a taxable person established in a first Member State is not exempt from value added tax under that provision where, prior to entering into that supply transaction, the person acquiring the goods, who is identified for value added tax purposes in a second Member State, informs the supplier that the goods will be resold immediately to a taxable person established in a third Member State, before he takes them out of the first Member State and transports them to that third taxable person, provided that that second supply has in fact been carried out and the goods have then been transported from the first Member State to the Member State of the third taxable person. The fact that the first person acquiring the goods is identified for value added tax purposes in a Member State other than that of the place of the first supply or that of the place of the final acquisition is not a criterion for classification of an intra-Community transaction or, in itself, evidence sufficient to show that a transaction is an intra-Community one. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a supply of goods by a taxable person established in a first Member State is not exempt from value added tax under that provision where, prior to entering into that supply transaction, the person acquiring the goods, who is identified for value added tax purposes in a second Member State, informs the supplier that the goods will be resold immediately to a taxable person established in a third Member State, before he takes them out of the first Member State and transports them to that third taxable person, provided that that second supply has in fact been carried out and the goods have then been transported from the first Member State to the Member State of the third taxable person. The fact that the first person acquiring the goods is identified for value added tax purposes in a Member State other than that of the place of the first supply or that of the place of the final acquisition is not a criterion for classification of an intra-Community transaction or, in itself, evidence sufficient to show that a transaction is an intra-Community one.

| 2. | For the purposes of interpreting Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, processing of the goods, in the course of a chain of two successive supplies, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out on the instructions of the middleman acquiring the goods and before the goods are transported to the Member State of the person finally acquiring them, has no effect on the conditions for any exemption of the first supply where that processing takes place after the first supply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of interpreting Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, processing of the goods, in the course of a chain of two successive supplies, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out on the instructions of the middleman acquiring the goods and before the goods are transported to the Member State of the person finally acquiring them, has no effect on the conditions for any exemption of the first supply where that processing takes place after the first supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH

(Case C-471/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ - Rejection of the opposition - Evidence presented for the first time - Distortion - Genuine use of the earlier trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Article 8(5) - Link between the trade marks to be compared))

(2017/C 309/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12. 2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A.S. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-490/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Arrival of an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals wishing to obtain international protection - Organisation by the authorities of a Member State of the crossing of the border for the purpose of transit to another Member State - Entry authorised by way of derogation for humanitarian reasons - Article 13 - Irregular crossing of an external border - Period of 12 months from the crossing of the border - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of judicial review - Article 29 - Period of six months for the purpose of effecting the transfer - Running of the periods - Use of an appeal - Suspensory effect))

(2017/C 309/19)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.S.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, an applicant for international protection is entitled, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, to plead incorrect application of the criterion for determining responsibility relating to the irregular crossing of the border of a Member State, laid down in Article 13(1) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, an applicant for international protection is entitled, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, to plead incorrect application of the criterion for determining responsibility relating to the irregular crossing of the border of a Member State, laid down in Article 13(1) of that regulation.

| 2. | On a proper construction of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, a third-country national whose entry has been tolerated by the authorities of a first Member State faced with the arrival of an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals wishing to transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without satisfying the entry conditions in principle required in that first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of that first Member State, within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On a proper construction of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, a third-country national whose entry has been tolerated by the authorities of a first Member State faced with the arrival of an exceptionally large number of third-country nationals wishing to transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without satisfying the entry conditions in principle required in that first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of that first Member State, within the meaning of that provision.

| 3. | On a proper construction of Article 13(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 604/2013, read together with Article 7(2) of that regulation, the lodging of an appeal against a transfer decision has no effect on the running of the period laid down in Article 13(1). |
| --- | --- |

3.

On a proper construction of Article 13(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 604/2013, read together with Article 7(2) of that regulation, the lodging of an appeal against a transfer decision has no effect on the running of the period laid down in Article 13(1).

On a proper construction of Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation, the lodging of such an appeal means that the period laid down by those provisions does not start to run until the final decision on that appeal, including when the court hearing the appeal has decided to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice, as long as that appeal had suspensory effect in accordance with Article 27(3) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-519/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Funding of official controls - Articles 26 and 27 - General taxation - Fees or charges - Charge on retail food outlets))

(2017/C 309/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Superfoz — Supermercados Lda

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 26 and 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition of a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on retail food outlets only, where the revenue from that charge is not used specifically to finance official controls that have been caused by, or that are for the benefit of, those chargeable persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari

(Case C-646/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking international protection - Organisation of border crossing by the authorities of one Member State for the purpose of transit to another Member State - Entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds - Article 2(m) - Definition of a ‘visa’ - Article 12 - Issuing of a visa - Article 13 - Irregular crossing of an external border))

(2017/C 309/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 2(m) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the authorities of one Member State, faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, tolerate the entry into its territory of such nationals who do not fulfil the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, is not tantamount to the issuing of a ‘visa’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 604/2013. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 2(m) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the authorities of one Member State, faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, tolerate the entry into its territory of such nationals who do not fulfil the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, is not tantamount to the issuing of a ‘visa’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 604/2013.

| 2. | Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-670/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 20 - Start of the determination process - Lodging an application for international protection - Report prepared by the authorities that reached the competent authorities - Article 21(1) - Time limits for making a take charge request - Transfer of responsibility to another Member State - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of judicial review))

(2017/C 309/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tsegezab Mengesteab

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant.

| 2. | Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a take charge request cannot validly be made more than three months after the application for international protection has been lodged, even if that request is made within two months of receipt of a Eurodac hit within the meaning of that article. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a take charge request cannot validly be made more than three months after the application for international protection has been lodged, even if that request is made within two months of receipt of a Eurodac hit within the meaning of that article.

| 3. | Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Solvay Chimica Italia SpA and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

(Case C-262/17)

(2017/C 309/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Solvay Chimica Italia SpA, Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy SpA, Solvay Chimica Bussi SpA, Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA, Fenice — Qualità Per L’ambiente SpA, Erg Power Srl, Erg Power Generation SpA, Eni SpA, Enipower SpA

Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation?

| 2. | If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems?

| 3. | Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28?

| 4. | Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permit the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permit the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals?

| 5. | In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Whirlpool Europe Srl and Others v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

(Case C-263/17)

(2017/C 309/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Whirlpool Europe Srl, Fenice — Qualità per l’ambiente SpA, FCA Italy SpA, FCA Group Purchasing Srl, FCA Melfi SpA, Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA, Versalis SpA

Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation?

| 2. | If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems?

| 3. | Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28?

| 4. | Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permit the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permit the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals?

| 5. | In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Sol Gas Primari Srl v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

(Case C-273/17)

(2017/C 309/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sol Gas Primari Srl

Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per il gas e il sistema idrico

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) in particular Articles 3(5) and (6) and 28, be interpreted as meaning that a system created and operated by a private person, to which a limited number of generation and consumption units are connected, and which in turn is connected to the public network, necessarily constitutes an electricity network, and thus a ‘distribution system’ for the purposes of that directive, without it being possible to exclude from that classification private systems with those characteristics created before the entry into force of that directive and set up originally for the purpose of self-generation?

| 2. | If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the only possibility offered by the directive of taking advantage of the particular features of a private electricity network that of including it in the category of closed distribution systems referred to in Article 28 of the directive, or is the national legislature permitted to identify another category of distribution systems subject to a simplified set of rules which are different from those laid down in respect of closed distribution systems?

| 3. | Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Independently of the previous questions, must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to connect third parties is applicable in all cases to the closed distribution systems referred in Article 28?

| 4. | Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permits the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Independently of the previous questions, does the classification of a private electricity network as a closed distribution system within the meaning of Article 28 of Directive 2009/72/EC, permits the national legislature to allow, in favour of such a system, only the derogations from the general scheme for distribution systems expressly referred to in Articles 28 and 26(4) of the directive, or is the Member State — in the light of what is stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the directive — permitted or required to provide for other exceptions to the application of the general rules governing distribution systems in such a way as to ensure attainment of the objectives set out in those recitals?

| 5. | In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that the Court of Justice considers that the Member State may or must lay down rules which take account of the specific nature of closed distribution systems, do the provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC — in particular recitals 29 and 30 and Articles 15(7), 37(6)(b) and 26(4) — preclude national legislation, such as that under consideration in the present case, which subjects closed distribution systems to rules on dispatching and unbundling that are very similar to those imposed in respect of public networks and which, as regards general electricity charges, provides that payment of those charges should in part also be commensurate with the energy consumed within the closed system?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-297/17)

(2017/C 309/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrahim Bashar

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?
  In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?

In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible?

| 2. | Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where






  a) | the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where

a)

the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or

| b) | the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,






  — | infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,

—

infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or

| — | does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR? |
| --- | --- |

—

does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR?

| 4. | If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State?

| 5. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative:






  a) | Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

a)

Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself?

| b) | Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google Inc.

(Case C-299/17)

(2017/C 309/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH

Defendant: Google Inc.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a national rule which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers which edit content, but not other users, including commercial users, from making press products or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public constitute, under Article 1(2) and (5) of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC), (1) a rule which is not specifically aimed at the services defined in that point,
  and, if that is not the case, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national rule which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers which edit content, but not other users, including commercial users, from making press products or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public constitute, under Article 1(2) and (5) of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC), (1) a rule which is not specifically aimed at the services defined in that point,

and, if that is not the case,

| 2. | does a national rule which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers which edit content, but not other users, including commercial users, from making press products or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC), namely a compulsory rule on the provision of a service? |
| --- | --- |

2.

does a national rule which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers which edit content, but not other users, including commercial users, from making press products or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC), namely a compulsory rule on the provision of a service?

---

(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-312/17)

(2017/C 309/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

Defendants: Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Question referred

Is Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the receipt of interim assistance — granted, on the basis of the basic remuneration laid down in the collective agreement, with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence for workers who have lost their jobs until they are able to secure financial protection through entitlement to a pension under the statutory pension scheme — ends once the worker concerned is entitled to receive an early retirement pension, and the application of which is based on the possibility of receiving an early retirement pension on grounds of disability?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Mahmud Ibrahim and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-318/17)

(2017/C 309/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mahmud Ibrahim, Fadwa Ibrahim, Bushra Ibrahim, Mohammad Ibrahim, legally represented by Fadwa and Mahmud Ibrahim, Ahmad Ibrahim, legally represented by Fadwa and Mahmud Ibrahim

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?
  In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?

In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible?

| 2. | Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where






  a) | the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where

a)

the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or

| b) | the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,






  — | infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,

—

infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or

| — | does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR? |
| --- | --- |

—

does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR?

| 4. | If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State?

| 5. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative:






  a) | Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

a)

Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself?

| b) | Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 2013, p. 60).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Nisreen Sharqawi and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-319/17)

(2017/C 309/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, legally represented by Nisreen Sharqawi, Hosam Fattayrji, legally represented by Nisreen Sharqawi

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?
  In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?

In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible?

| 2. | Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where






  a) | the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where

a)

the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or

| b) | the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,






  — | infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,

—

infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or

| — | does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR? |
| --- | --- |

—

does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR?

| 4. | If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State?

| 5. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative:






  a) | Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

a)

Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself?

| b) | Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. OJ L 180, 2013, p. 60.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

(Case C-328/17)

(2017/C 309/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA, Atc Esercizio SpA, Atp Esercizio Sr, Riviera Trasporti SpA, Tpl Linea Srl

Defendants: Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

Question referred

Do Article 1(1), (2) and (3) and Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, preclude a national law which recognises only economic operators that applied to take part in a tendering procedure as being able to challenge the documents relating to a tendering procedure, even when the action criticises the tendering procedure as a matter of principle because the rules of the tendering procedure make it highly unlikely that the economic operator would be awarded the contract?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

(Case C-331/17)

(2017/C 309/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Martina Sciotto

Respondent: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

Question referred

Are the national rules (in particular under Article 3(6) of Decree-Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 100 of 29 June 2010, in so far as they determine that ‘the provisions of Article 1(01) and (2) of Legislative Decree No 368 of 6 September 2008 shall not apply to the operatic and orchestral foundations’) incompatible with Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which appears in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) lodged on 8 June 2017 — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova

(Case C-342/17)

(2017/C 309/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia

Defendant: Comune di Padova

Question referred

Must Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the application of the following provisions of Article 52 of the Regulation on funeral services of the Municipality of Padua?

‘The recipient shall not in any circumstances be permitted to request a third party to keep the funeral urn. This prohibition shall apply even if the deceased expressly stated during his lifetime that such was his wish (third subparagraph).

It is obligatory to keep the urn solely at the home of the recipient (fourth subparagraph) ...

In no circumstances may funeral urns be kept for profit and economic activities relating to, even non-exclusively, the keeping of funeral urns, for whatever purpose and for whatever period, shall therefore not be permitted. This prohibition shall apply even if the deceased expressly stated during his lifetime that such was his wish (tenth subparagraph).’

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Hüsken and Others v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

(Case C-368/17)

(2017/C 309/34)

Language of the Case: German

Referring Court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hüsken and Others

Defendant: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 6 July 2017.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Finanzamt B v A-Brauerei

(Case C-374/17)

(2017/C 309/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt B

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: A-Brauerei

Question referred

Is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that there is aid prohibited under that provision in the case where legislation of a Member State provides that real property transfer tax is not charged on a taxable acquisition pursuant to a transformation (merger) in the event that certain legal entities (a controlling undertaking and a dependent company) are involved in the transformation procedure and the controlling undertaking’s 100 % holding in the dependent company has existed for five years prior to the legal procedure and for five years thereafter?

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — UAB ‘EVP International’ v Lietuvos bankas

(Case C-389/17)

(2017/C 309/36)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UAB ‘EVP International’

Other party: Lietuvos bankas

Questions referred

Is Article 5(2), read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(a), of Directive 2009/110/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the following are to be regarded as payment services that are (not) linked to the issuance of electronic money:

| (a) | a payment transaction whereby, at the request (instruction) of the electronic money holder to the electronic money institution (the issuer), the electronic money (redeemable funds) redeemed at par value is transferred to a third-party bank account; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a payment transaction whereby, at the request (instruction) of the electronic money holder to the electronic money institution (the issuer), the electronic money (redeemable funds) redeemed at par value is transferred to a third-party bank account;

| (b) | a payment transaction whereby, on the instruction of the seller, the buyer (payer) of goods and/or services pays for the goods and/or services by making a transfer/payment of funds to an electronic money institution (issuer of electronic money), which, upon receipt of the funds, issues electronic money, at par value of the funds received, for the benefit of the seller (electronic money holder)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a payment transaction whereby, on the instruction of the seller, the buyer (payer) of goods and/or services pays for the goods and/or services by making a transfer/payment of funds to an electronic money institution (issuer of electronic money), which, upon receipt of the funds, issues electronic money, at par value of the funds received, for the benefit of the seller (electronic money holder)?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (OJ 2009 L 267, p. 7).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch

(Case C-400/17)

(2017/C 309/37)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Dolj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița

Defendants: SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract’ may also be said to exist where, during the performance of the contract, whether it is performed at regular intervals or continuously, performance by the consumer has become excessively burdensome in comparison with the time when the contract was concluded because of significant variations in the exchange rate, which none of the parties could have foreseen? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract’ may also be said to exist where, during the performance of the contract, whether it is performed at regular intervals or continuously, performance by the consumer has become excessively burdensome in comparison with the time when the contract was concluded because of significant variations in the exchange rate, which none of the parties could have foreseen?

| 2. | Must the plainness and intelligibility of a contractual term, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, be understood to mean that the term must provide only for the grounds for its conclusion in the contract and its method of operation, or must it also provide for all the possible consequences of the term as a result of which the price to be paid by the consumer may vary, such as for example, foreign exchange risk? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the plainness and intelligibility of a contractual term, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, be understood to mean that the term must provide only for the grounds for its conclusion in the contract and its method of operation, or must it also provide for all the possible consequences of the term as a result of which the price to be paid by the consumer may vary, such as for example, foreign exchange risk?

| 3. | When interpreting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, may the expression ‘not be binding on the consumer’ be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations as a result of changes in the exchange rate, the national court may exempt the consumer from the obligation to bear the entire foreign exchange risk? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When interpreting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, may the expression ‘not be binding on the consumer’ be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations as a result of changes in the exchange rate, the national court may exempt the consumer from the obligation to bear the entire foreign exchange risk?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 25).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/29

---

Appeal brought on 04/07/2017 by JYSK sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 04/05/2017 in Case T-403/15: JYSK sp. z o.o. v European Commission

(Case C-402/17 P)

(2017/C 309/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: JYSK sp. z o.o. (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court declaring its action inadmissible on the ground that it is not directly and individually concerned by Commission decision C (2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015 should be set aside on the ground that it violates the principle of effective judicial protection.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant argues that indirect access to the Court of Justice via a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polish courts does not provide the protection envisaged by article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The appellant maintains that it is directly and individually concerned by the aforementioned Commission decision.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’ v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika

(Case C-413/17)

(2017/C 309/39)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’

Other party: VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika

Question referred

Should the provisions of Articles 2 and 23 of, and of Annex VI to, Directive 2004/18 (1) (whether together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions), be interpreted and understood as meaning that, in the case where a contracting authority — a human health care institution — intends to acquire supplies (medical diagnostic equipment and materials) or specific rights thereto by way of a public procurement procedure in order to be able to carry out tests by itself, its discretion includes the right to lay down in the technical specifications only such requirements for those supplies as do not describe in isolation the individual operational (technical) and use-related (functional) characteristics of the equipment and/or materials but instead define the qualitative parameters of the tests to be carried out as well as the performance of the testing laboratory, the content of which must be separately described in the specifications of the public procurement procedure in question?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

(Case C-431/17)

(2017/C 309/40)

Language of the case: Greece

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis

Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

Question referred

Is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a monk of the Church of Greece as a lawyer, with the competent authority of a Member State other than that in which he obtained his professional qualification, in order for him to practise there under his home-country professional title, may be prohibited by the national legislature on the ground that monks of the Church of Greece cannot, under national law, be entered in the registers of bar associations since, on account of that status possessed by them, they do not provide certain guarantees necessary for practice as a lawyer?

---

(1)  Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36).

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents

(Case C-443/17)

(2017/C 309/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Question referred

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation (1) to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an old active ingredient?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ L 152, p. 1)

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/31

---

Appeal brought on 31 July 2017 by Rami Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2017 in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union

(Case C-458/17 P)

(2017/C 309/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Rami Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | set aside the judgment of 18 May 2017 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:349; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 18 May 2017 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:349;

and

adjudge the case afresh and accordingly:

| — | annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and the subsequent measures implementing that decision, in so far as they relate to the appellant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and the subsequent measures implementing that decision, in so far as they relate to the appellant; and

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, prior to the adoption of the new restrictive measures;

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law consisting of a distortion of facts, in that the General Court disregarded the articles lodged by the appellant in support of his action for annulment and designed to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court did not find the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) under which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, to be unlawful, while at the same time reversing the burden of proof;

The fourth ground of appeal alleges an error of law and a failure to state reasons in that the General Court took the view that the concept of a ‘prominent businessman’ was sufficiently precise to include the appellant on the lists of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures and that it failed to justify why it took the view that the appellant had influence over the Syrian regime.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

---

General Court

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission

(Case T-371/17 R)

((Interim proceedings - Competition - Antitrust - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(3) - Decision requesting information - Application for interim measures - No urgency))

(2017/C 309/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc., (San Diego, California (United States of America) and Qualcomm Europe, Inc., (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and M. Davilla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Van Vliet, G. Conte, C. Urraca Caviedes and M. Farley, Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, seeking the suspension of operation of Commission Decision of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (predation)).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/33

---

Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE)

(Case T-429/17)

(2017/C 309/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires Majorelle (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Odinot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jardin Majorelle (Marrakech, Morocco)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ — Application for registration No 11 371 655

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 1238/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant registration of the Community trade mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ in respect of:
  Class 3: Soaps; Cosmetics; Cosmetics; Washing preparations for personal deodorising purposes or personal hygiene; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Non-medicated skin care preparations; Skin cleaning preparations; Skin conditioners;
  Class 5: Pharmaceutical preparations for skin care; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Medicinal herbs; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements; Dietetic supplements for medical purposes; Health food supplements; Pharmaceutical preparations;
  Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; Orthopaedic articles; Suture materials; Surgical apparatus and instruments; Medical apparatus and instruments; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant registration of the Community trade mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ in respect of:

Class 3: Soaps; Cosmetics; Cosmetics; Washing preparations for personal deodorising purposes or personal hygiene; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Non-medicated skin care preparations; Skin cleaning preparations; Skin conditioners;

Class 5: Pharmaceutical preparations for skin care; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Medicinal herbs; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements; Dietetic supplements for medical purposes; Health food supplements; Pharmaceutical preparations;

Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; Orthopaedic articles; Suture materials; Surgical apparatus and instruments; Medical apparatus and instruments;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 in the light of the existence of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based, the examination of the evidence of genuine use of the earlier trade marks, and the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 in the light of the existence of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based, the examination of the evidence of genuine use of the earlier trade marks, and the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/34

---

Action brought on 17 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-438/17)

(2017/C 309/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Rodríguez Domínguez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Estévez, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘JOHN COR’ — European Union trade mark No 10 965 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1289/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/35

---

Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)

(Case T-456/17)

(2017/C 309/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibryam Dzhihangir (Silistra, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Djili soy original DS’ — Application for registration No 8 810 558

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03 May 2017 in Case R 516/2011-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition against the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’ and/or to cancel the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition against the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’ and/or to cancel the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’;

| — | in subsidiary, annul the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal dated 03/05/2017 concerning the appeal R 516/2011-5 and to order the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and further to order the Board of Appeal to maintain the suspension of its proceedings until a written, motivated and signed final decision on the appeal for annulment, docket no. 2794/1/2016, is provided to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary, annul the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal dated 03/05/2017 concerning the appeal R 516/2011-5 and to order the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and further to order the Board of Appeal to maintain the suspension of its proceedings until a written, motivated and signed final decision on the appeal for annulment, docket no. 2794/1/2016, is provided to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order EUIPO and DZHIHANGIR Ibryam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and DZHIHANGIR Ibryam to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 1, 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1, 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights;

| — | Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no.2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no.2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark;

| — | Mutatis mutandis article 53(2)(c) and (d) of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 in respect of the applicant’s copyright for the picture of the package ‘Djili’ written in red letters on a blue package with the figure of a parrot and in respect of the applicant’s rights to use a trade name for products in the sense of the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Case C-17/06 ‘Celine’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mutatis mutandis article 53(2)(c) and (d) of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 in respect of the applicant’s copyright for the picture of the package ‘Djili’ written in red letters on a blue package with the figure of a parrot and in respect of the applicant’s rights to use a trade name for products in the sense of the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Case C-17/06 ‘Celine’;

| — | Other relevant legal provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Other relevant legal provision.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/36

---

Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Fifth Avenue Entertainment v EUIPO — Commodore Entertainment Corporation (THE COMMODORES)

(Case T-459/17)

(2017/C 309/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fifth Avenue Entertainment LLC (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Commodore Entertainment Corporation (Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘THE COMMODORES’ — Application for registration No 13 370 077

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2017 in Case R 851/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | payment of the appellant’s cost. |
| --- | --- |

—

payment of the appellant’s cost.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of No 207/2009.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/36

---

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — TP v Commission

(Case T-464/17)

(2017/C 309/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: W. Limuti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and withdraw the contested decision and annul all consequent acts stemming therefrom, including implied acts and acts not known to the applicant, cancelling all consequent effects adversely affecting the applicant and impacting on his legal and financial interests, and ensure that the matter will be treated in such a way as to enable the applicant, after having obtained the necessary information, to set out his views, so that the new decision may be taken in compliance with the principles of trust, legality and transparency; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and withdraw the contested decision and annul all consequent acts stemming therefrom, including implied acts and acts not known to the applicant, cancelling all consequent effects adversely affecting the applicant and impacting on his legal and financial interests, and ensure that the matter will be treated in such a way as to enable the applicant, after having obtained the necessary information, to set out his views, so that the new decision may be taken in compliance with the principles of trust, legality and transparency;

| — | acknowledge, in upholding the present action, the damage suffered by the official in the meantime, in particular not only the material damage but also the non-material mental and physical damage as set out in the medical and legal expert report on the events in question, which acknowledges moderately serious existential damage and records that the applicant has trouble adjusting coupled with anxiety and chronic depression, caused by trauma suffered in the workplace and quantifiable at 20 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

acknowledge, in upholding the present action, the damage suffered by the official in the meantime, in particular not only the material damage but also the non-material mental and physical damage as set out in the medical and legal expert report on the events in question, which acknowledges moderately serious existential damage and records that the applicant has trouble adjusting coupled with anxiety and chronic depression, caused by trauma suffered in the workplace and quantifiable at 20 %.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant contesting the deduction made by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (the PMO) in respect of his salary following the judgment of the Tribunale di Treviso (District Court, Treviso) finalising the divorce between the applicant and his ex-wife.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | Infringement of the guaranteed right of an official to be heard and to set out his views. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of the guaranteed right of an official to be heard and to set out his views.

| 2. | Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain information relevant to his defence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain information relevant to his defence.

| 3. | Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain an indication of the reasons why he could not receive the relevant information. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain an indication of the reasons why he could not receive the relevant information.

| 4. | Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to the information concerning the pending procedure against him and failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for the decisions taken. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to the information concerning the pending procedure against him and failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for the decisions taken.

| 5. | Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to be defended and assisted by the institution against attacks by other persons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to be defended and assisted by the institution against attacks by other persons.

| 6. | Existence of mental and physical damage to the applicant’s person and a corresponding causal link between the conduct of the administration and the damage suffered. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Existence of mental and physical damage to the applicant’s person and a corresponding causal link between the conduct of the administration and the damage suffered.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/37

---

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX)

(Case T-465/17)

(2017/C 309/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Heebøll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘VELUX’ — Recordal application No T 2 299 611

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2017 in Case R 1927/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal and thereby allow recordal request no. T 2 299 611 relating to EUTM 000651869 (VELUX), |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal and thereby allow recordal request no. T 2 299 611 relating to EUTM 000651869 (VELUX),

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the Board. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the Board.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 34(2) and Rule 28 of EUTMIR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 34(2) and Rule 28 of EUTMIR.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/38

---

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-469/17)

(2017/C 309/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Rodríguez Domínguez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Estévez, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘JOHN COR’ — European Union trade mark No 10 965 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2017 in Case R 1290/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) and (j), of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) and (j), of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/38

---

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)

(Case T-470/17)

(2017/C 309/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sensotek GmbH (Reichenbach an der Fils, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senso Tecnologie Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘sensotek’ — Application for registration No 10 648 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1953/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/39

---

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Edison v EUIPO (EDISON)

(Case T-471/17)

(2017/C 309/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘EDISON’ — Application for registration No 3 315 991

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 in Case R 1355/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Incorrect exclusion from Class 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Nice Classification of ‘Electricity’ on the ground that it does not fall under the category of ‘fuel (including motor spirits)’, ‘motor fuels’ and ‘illuminants’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect exclusion from Class 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Nice Classification of ‘Electricity’ on the ground that it does not fall under the category of ‘fuel (including motor spirits)’, ‘motor fuels’ and ‘illuminants’.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/40

---

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)

(Case T-488/17)

(2017/C 309/53)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ghost — Corporate Management SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. de Barros Araújo, advogada)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘Dry zone’ — Application for registration No 15 498 322

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2017 in Case R 0683/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present appeal and consequently annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2017 in its entirety and consequently substitute the contested decision with one which holds that Case No R 683/2017-2, EUTM No 015498322 Dry Zone was filed in good time, so that the action may be pursued accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present appeal and consequently annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2017 in its entirety and consequently substitute the contested decision with one which holds that Case No R 683/2017-2, EUTM No 015498322 Dry Zone was filed in good time, so that the action may be pursued accordingly.

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | First plea: infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1) and Article 72(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (JO 1995, L 303, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21); |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea: infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1) and Article 72(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (JO 1995, L 303, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21);

| — | second plea: failure to observe the procedural safeguards to which the appellant is entitled, by not establishing the existence of facts which are not under the control of the applicant or which amount to an incidence of force majeure, in breach of the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

second plea: failure to observe the procedural safeguards to which the appellant is entitled, by not establishing the existence of facts which are not under the control of the applicant or which amount to an incidence of force majeure, in breach of the principle of proportionality;

| — | third plea: infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

third plea: infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/40

---

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)

(Case T-489/17)

(2017/C 309/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH (Daun, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bottle stopper) — Application for registration No 15 024 987

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1374/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/41

---

Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)

(Case T-13/16) (1)

(2017/C 309/55)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/41

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)

(Case T-260/17) (1)

(2017/C 309/56)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

Corrigenda

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/42

---

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-175/17

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 269 of 14 August 2017
  )

(2017/C 309/57)

The OJ notice in Case T-175/17, Ostvesta v Commission should read as follows:

Action brought on 15 March 2017 — Ostvesta v Commission

(Case T-175/17)

(2017/C 269/38)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: Ostvesta SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Davidovičs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Mission Report THOR (2013) 11413-07/05/2013 of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), together with its 15 annexes, Final Report OF/2010/0827/B1, Report No OF/2010/0827 and Report THOR (2011) 27463, in view of the serious illegalities vitiating those acts and the recommended measures adopted on the basis of those acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Mission Report THOR (2013) 11413-07/05/2013 of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), together with its 15 annexes, Final Report OF/2010/0827/B1, Report No OF/2010/0827 and Report THOR (2011) 27463, in view of the serious illegalities vitiating those acts and the recommended measures adopted on the basis of those acts;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are binding on the State tax authorities and courts and have direct legal effects that harm the interests and the personal and actual rights of the applicant, altering its legal position, and are therefore challengeable acts, taking into consideration:






  — | the nature of customs duties as ‘EU own resources’ and the consequential obligations for Member States, which must collect those duties; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are binding on the State tax authorities and courts and have direct legal effects that harm the interests and the personal and actual rights of the applicant, altering its legal position, and are therefore challengeable acts, taking into consideration:

—

the nature of customs duties as ‘EU own resources’ and the consequential obligations for Member States, which must collect those duties;

| — | the nature of OLAF as the administrative investigating body that replaces the Commission in external investigations; |
| --- | --- |

—

the nature of OLAF as the administrative investigating body that replaces the Commission in external investigations;

| — | the role of the European Commission, as the institution with an enforcement function in relation to the application of the European Union’s Customs Code. |
| --- | --- |

—

the role of the European Commission, as the institution with an enforcement function in relation to the application of the European Union’s Customs Code.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful and are vitiated by irregularities, because:






  — | they do not contain any of the essential information envisaged in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013; that is to say, they lack information relating to the procedural guarantees in the investigation, to the persons involved in the investigation, to the hearing of the applicant’s legal representatives, or to the preliminary legal qualification; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful and are vitiated by irregularities, because:

—

they do not contain any of the essential information envisaged in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013; that is to say, they lack information relating to the procedural guarantees in the investigation, to the persons involved in the investigation, to the hearing of the applicant’s legal representatives, or to the preliminary legal qualification;

| — | they reject the responsibility of the competent authorities in an unreasoned and contradictory manner; |
| --- | --- |

—

they reject the responsibility of the competent authorities in an unreasoned and contradictory manner;

| — | OLAF failed to fulfil its duty to conduct the investigation objectively and impartially and in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence; |
| --- | --- |

—

OLAF failed to fulfil its duty to conduct the investigation objectively and impartially and in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence;

| — | incorrect information is included in the Final Report because of the lack of a preliminary investigation or because of omissions in the preliminary investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrect information is included in the Final Report because of the lack of a preliminary investigation or because of omissions in the preliminary investigation;

| — | the Community legislation in the field of anti-dumping duties was infringed and misapplied; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Community legislation in the field of anti-dumping duties was infringed and misapplied;

| — | the Community legislation and the legislation of the Republic of Taiwan concerning the obligation imposed on the Bureau of Foreign Trade of Taiwan to verify the origin of the goods which it certifies were infringed and misapplied; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Community legislation and the legislation of the Republic of Taiwan concerning the obligation imposed on the Bureau of Foreign Trade of Taiwan to verify the origin of the goods which it certifies were infringed and misapplied;

| — | Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code was infringed and misapplied; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code was infringed and misapplied;

| — | the Treaties and the legal rules relating to their application, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically Article 41 thereof, were infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Treaties and the legal rules relating to their application, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically Article 41 thereof, were infringed.

---